Medieval india from sultanat to the mughals

As the central control grew, the control over the muqti's administration also increased. The naib diwan (also called khwaja) in charge of revenue administration began to be appointed from the centre. A barid or intelligence officer was also posted to keep the sultan informed. But it seems that the muqti appointed his own troops, keeping a naib ariz at the centre to represent him. It is not clear who appointed the qazis. Appeals from the qazis, and against the

142

conduct of the governors could be made to the sultan. The governor could, however, give revenue-free lands to scholars out of his iqta.

Under Muhammad bin Tughlaq, we hear of a number of persons who were appointed governors on revenue-farming terms. This attempt to maximise the income was a step back for it implied elimination of central control over revenue affairs. But it seems that such persons were not required to maintain troops for the service of the centre, these being placed under a separate officer. This duality of functions did not work and was apparently given up by Firuz.

According to Barani, there were 20 provinces in the Sultanat when it did not include the south. As compared to the provinces (subahs) of Akbar's time, these were smaller. Thus, out of the modern U.P., the middle doab was divided between Meerut, Baran (now Bulandshahr) and Koil (now Aligarh), and another three were in the north-west. Provinces in the Mughal sense really began under Muhammad bin Tughlaq. Under him, the number of provinces covering the entire country upto Malabar according to an Arab writer, Shihabuddin al Umar, was twenty-four.

We do not know whether there were any units equivalent to the modern district or division below the provinces. We hear of shiqs and sarkars in the Afghan histories dealing with the Lodis and the Surs. But these accounts were written during Akbar's time, and we are not certain that these were not, in fact, administrative units of a later time. We do, however, hear of parganas, sadis (unit of 100), and chaurasis (unit of 84). The sadis and chaurasis were collections of villages. The number of villages could vary. Perhaps, a chaudhari who was a hereditary land-holder, and an amil or revenue collector were posted there, especially if the area was under khalisa. We hear of khuts and muqaddams. The former was the zamindar of one or more villages, while the latter was the village headman. The patwari was also a village official because we are told that Alauddin Khalji had the account books of the patwaris examined in order to detect frauds by the amils and mutsarrifs who were dealt with very harshly.

Thus, a rudimentary system of government, some of it inherited from the earlier Hindu rulers, continued down to the village level.

In this way, gradually a new centralised form of government emerged. The first step was the consolidation of the central government. As the central government became stronger and more confident, it tried to extend its direct control over the regions and the

143

countryside, which, in turn, implied reducing the powers and privileges of the chiefs who dominated the countryside. This led to a prolonged struggle, and no clear forms had emerged by the time the Delhi sultanat disintegrated. This was a task which was taken up by the Mughals later on.

144

9 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LIFE IN NORTH INDIA UNDER THE DELHI SULTANAT

There has been a considerable difference of opinion among scholars regarding the impact of Turkish rule on the economic and social life of North India beginning with the 13th century. One view was that the Turks wrought such damage to the economic life and the social and cultural fabric that it could only be repaired after a long time and, to some extent, only under the Mughals. In other words, the entire period of Sultanat rule was painted in dark colours, so much so that it was argued that there was a decline of population in northern India during the period! A second opinion was that since Indian society had hardly changed over the millenia, the negative aspects of Turkish rule were soon overcome, and that after some time the Turkish rulers emphasised justice and protection of the people rather than conquest. Hence, the even tenor of life was continued as far as the mass of the people were concerned, the effect of Turkish rule being felt mainly by the former ruling section—the Rajputs, and their close associates and beneficiaries, the brahmans. It was argued that in this way, there was change only at the surface.

In recent times, a new view of Indian history has emerged which emphasises change rather than continuity. Thus, it traces the various phases of social development from the time of the Vedic Age. It is argued that along with periods of growth, decline and stagnation, there have been important structural changes in Indian society during its long history. We need not discuss here the early period of Indian history. The period following the decline of the Gupta empire in north India is seen as one during which towns

145

and long distance trade declined, gold coins virtually disappeared and even the silver currency was debased. At the local level, the power of the landed elites increased not only on the economic and social life, but over the administrative processes of the state. The word "feudal" has been used for this system, even though some of the characteristic features of European feudalism, the manor system and vassalage, were absent.

The establishment of Turkish rule in north India led, according to an eminent modern historian, Muhammad Habib, to far-reaching changes in society and economic life. According to him, the new Turkish regime released social forces which created an economic organisation considerably superior to the one that had existed before, that it led to the expansion of towns, and to important alterations in agrarian relationships. We shall examine these views in the following pages.

A. Economic Life

i. Agricultural Production

There were hardly any elements of change in the rural economy during the Sultanat period. Ibn Battutah, who travelled all over India, has left us a detailed account of the food-grains and various other crops, fruits and flowers produced in the country. Most of them are familiar to us, with rice and sugar-cane being produced in the east and south, and wheat, oil-seeds etc, in the north. Cotton was grown widely, as also barley, sesame and other inferior crops. Ibn Battutah says that the soil was so fertile that it produced two crops a year—the familiar rabi (winter) and kharif (monsoon) crops. Rice was sown three times a year. Some of the crops were the basis of village industries, such as oil-processing, making jaggery, indigo, spinning and weaving etc. Potato, maize, red chillies and tobacco which were introduced during the 16th century are, of course, missing.

During the 14th century, under Muhammad bin Tughlaq and Firuz Tughlaq, there was a marked development of gardens. Firuz Tughlaq is said to have built 1200 gardens in the neighbourhood and suburbs of Delhi, 80 on the Salora embankment, and 44 in Chittor. These gardens led to the improvement of fruits, especially grapes. Thus, we are told that wine, apparently grape-wine, used to come to Delhi from Meerut and Aligarh. Dholpur, Gwaliyar and Jodhpur were the other places where improved methods of fruit cultivation

146

and gardening were adopted. Special attention was paid to the improvement of pomegranates at Jodhpur. Sikandar Lodi declared that Persia could net produce pomegranates which were better than the Jodhpur variety in flavour.

However, the fruits produced in these orchards were meant mainly for the towns, and for the tables of the wealthy. They may, however, have produced some employment, and added to the avenues of trade.

Regarding implements, although they are hardly mentioned, we may assume that there was no change in them till the 19th century. We have no idea of the productivity of the soil. It may have been higher because of more extensive manuring by cattle which were plentiful, as testified to by the fact that charai based on the number of animals was an important agricultural tax. Also, banjaras had thousands of oxen for their journeys. The peasants had more land per head because of a much smaller population. Forests were also much more extensive. However, on account of social constraints, we hear of landless labourers and menials in the villages. Most of the land was rain fed, though digging of wells and making of bunds (embankments) for storing water for irrigation were considered holy acts, and the state took an active part in building and preserving them.

An extensive system of canals was set up for the first time by Firuz during the second half of the 14th century. As we have mentioned earlier, he cut two canals from the Jamuna, and one each from the Sutlej and the Ghaggar. But these mainly benefited the areas around Hissar in modern Haryana. Other smaller canals in Sindh and the Punjab are also mentioned.

Rural Society

The contemporary sources are almost silent on the subject of rural society. This deficiency can be made up, to some extent, by taking recourse to information available in Sanskrit, Apabhramsh and some of the south Indian languages. Although the information on village life available in these sources deal with the period from the 9th—10th centuries onwards, they provide us a background, and enable us to understand better the changes and continuities in village life under the Delhi Sultanat.

From the writings of the 12th century Jain writer, Hemachandra, we can divide the village folk into four categories, i.e. (i) the produce-sharing peasants or share-croppers for whom the words karshak

147

or ardhikas (receivers of a half share) are used; (ii) plough-shares and field labourers for whom various words such as halavakaka, kinasa and even karshak are used. These two sections constituted the lowest, most dependent peasantry. It seems that the word karshak, literally meaning the tiller of the soil, was a generic word for the lower peasantry which formed the largest group in the villages. Following them came the sections (iii) whom some modern writers have called free peasants, but for whom the word owner-proprietor may be more appropriate. In later times, they were called malik-i-zamin (owners of the land) or khud-kasht (owner cultivators). They were entitled to inherit the land they claimed by descent. They also owned their huts or houses, and had the use of the village commons. They were often organised on a caste basis. Lastly (iv) there were the villages artisans: the cobbler, the rope-maker, the watchman, etc. Some of the village artisans, such as the cobbler and field-labourers belonged to the svapach (untouchable) category. The word low or adhama is generally applied to them.

The commentators on Dharma Shastras, and other writers are agreed about the harrowing poverty and wretched life of the mass of the toiling peasantry. The Padma Purana describes the miserable life of the karshaks and that they were so much oppressed by the rulers of the time as to be unable to even support their families. The poverty of the peasants and field-labourers is contrasted with the luxurious life of the landed aristocracy, the samantas.

It will thus be seen that village society was highly unequal. The growth of a cash nexus which became more rapid under the Sultanat increased the disparities further. While the agrarian policies of the Sultans were meant to ensure a steady income for the ruler and the officials who administered the state, their policies also had an impact on the rural society and economy. This is an aspect which we have to infer because the medieval chroniclers were hardly concerned about it.

The Revenue System

We have little idea about the agrarian policies and practices before the arrival of the Turks in north India. The cultivators were required to pay a large number of cesses which were subsumed under the broad categories of bhaga (land revenue), bhog (cesses), and kar (extra cesses). However, it is difficult to calculate the share of the produce they comprised, individually or collectively, nor how much of it went to the ruler, and how much to his subordinates

148

or to the local landed elites. The traditional share of the produce payable by the peasants, according to the Dharamashastras, was one-sixth, but we hear of kings in south India demanding one-third, or two-thirds of the produce. We also hear of a Chola king who had authorised his feudatories to collect half of the produce. In actual practice, the land revenue demand must have depended upon what the peasants could be made to pay.

There was hardly any change in the structure of rural society during the 13th century. The early Turkish rulers depended on the Hindu chiefs to pay the land-revenue, leaving it to them to collect it from the peasants according to the existing practices. This, again, gives us no idea of the actual land-revenue that was demanded from the cultivators. The general approach of the Turkish ruling class is indicated by Barani who wrote almost a hundred years later. According to him, Balban advised his son, Bughra Khan, not to charge so much land-revenue (kharaj) as to reduce the peasant to a state of poverty, nor so little that they become rebellious on account of excess of wealth. We have no idea how this was implemented in practice. In general, it was designed not to interfere with the existing village set up.

The 14th century saw a number of new developments, as we have noted in the earlier chapters. Alauddin Khalji raised the land-revenue demand to half in the upper Doab region upto Aligarh, and in some areas of Rajasthan and Malwa. This area was made khalisa, i.e. the land-revenue collected there went directly to the Imperial treasury. The land-revenue demand was based on the measurement of the area cultivated by each cultivator. Further, except in the area around Delhi, the cultivators were encouraged to pay land-revenue in cash. Alauddin tried to ensure that the cultivators sold their grains to the banjaras while the crops were still standing in the field, i.e. without transporting them to their own stores so as to be sold later when more favourable prices might prevail. However, this had to be modified in practice because we are told that many of the cultivators themselves brought their grains for sale in the local mandi. These could only have been the rich cultivators.

Alauddin's agrarian measures amounted to a massive intervention in village affairs. Thus, he tried to operate against the privileged sections in the villages—the khuts, muqaddams, and chaudhuris and, to some extent, the rich peasants who had surplus food-grains to sell. The khuts and muqaddams were suspected of passing their burden on to the weaker sections, and not paying the ghari and charai taxes. In Barani's picturesque language, the khuts, and

149

muqaddams became so poor that they could not wear costly clothes and ride on Arabi and Iraqi horses, and their women were obliged to work in the houses of Muslims. Barani, no doubt, exaggerates. But the attempt to take away all the inherited privileges of the khuts and muqaddams, or of the upper sections of the landed nobility and to appoint an army of amils, most of whom proved to be corrupt, to supervise revenue collection was not liable to succeed.

We are told that Alauddin's revenue measures collapsed with his death. But we do not know whether it implied that the system of measurement was abolished, as also the demand for half of the produce in the khalisa areas of the doab. The restoration of the privileges of the khuts and muqaddams implies that the state no longer tried to assess the land-revenue on the basis of the holdings, i.e. area cultivated by each individual, but assessed it as a lump sum, leaving the assessment of individuals to the khuts and muqaddams. This was also a recognition of the economic and social power wielded by the khuts and muqaddams in the country-side.

Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq took the definite step of replacing the system of measurement by sharing in the khalisa areas. This was considered a step towards providing relief to the cultivators because while under measurement the risk of cultivation of crops had to be largely borne by the cultivator, under sharing both the profit or loss were shared by the cultivator and the state. Ghiyasuddin took another important step. In the territories held by the holders of iqtas, i.e. outside the khalisa areas, he ordered that the revenue demand should not be raised on the basis of guess or computation, but "by degrees and gradually because the weight of sudden enhancement would ruin the country and bar the way to prosperity." Barani explains this policy of moderate increases by saying that the revenue demand in the areas of the iqtas should not be increased by "one in ten or eleven". This phrase does not mean that the increase may be one-tenth or one-eleventh. Nor does it mean that the land revenue should be one-tenth, or the theoretical minimum of one-fifth, as some modern historians have assumed. Barani nowhere mentions the scale of the revenue demand, either in the khalisa areas of the doab, or in the iqtas. Perhaps, the traditional demand in the area outside the khalisa areas remained one-third as before.

Muhammad Tughlaq tried to revive Alauddin's system and to extend it all over the empire. His measures led to a serious peasant uprising in the doab. The reason for this, it seems, was that in assessing the land-revenue on individuals, not the actual yield but the artificially fixed standard yield was applied to the area under

150

measurement. Further, when converting the produce into cash, not the actual prices but official standard prices were applied. There was also harshness in levying the tax on cattle and houses. Thus, the actual incidence of land-revenue demand rose considerably, to half or even more.

Like Alauddin Khalji's agrarian reforms, Muhammad Tughlaq's measures were also designed to curtail the privileges of the more affluent sections in village society, especially the khuts and muqaddams. But his measures also hurt the average cultivator. This may explain why there was a serious uprising against his measures in the doab.

Muhammad Tughlaq then tried to reverse direction. In the doab which was the directly administered area (khalisa), he tried to improve cultivation by changing the cropping pattern, replacing inferior crops by superior crops. The main inducement for this was granting loans (sondhar) for digging wells, etc. This policy could only have succeeded with the co-operation of the richer cultivators, and the khuts and muqaddams who had the largest land-holdings, as well as the means. However, it failed because the officials appointed for the purpose had no knowledge of local conditions, and were only interested in enriching themselves. Firuz met with greater success by providing water to the peasants of Haryana by his canal system, levying an extra charge of 10 per cent, and leaving it to the peasants to cultivate what they wanted.

All in all, it would appear that the land-revenue under the Sultans, especially during the 14th century, remained heavy, hovering in the neighbourhood of half, and that there was a definite effort to reduce the power and privileges of the old intermediaries, the Rais, Rawats etc., with the khuts and muqaddams forging ahead. This was the first time that such a high magnitude of land-revenue was assessed and collected from a large and highly fertile area for several decades. Both the administrative methods adopted, and the centralisation of such large, liquid resources in the hands of the ruling class had important consequences, both for rural life and for the urban manufacturers, trade and commerce.

Firuz Tughlaq's rule is generally considered a period of rural prosperity. Barani and Afif tells that as result of the Sultan's orders, the provinces became cultivated, and tillage extended widely so that not a single village in the doab remained uncultivated. The canal system extended tillage in Haryana. According to Afif, "In the houses of the raiyat (peasantry) so much grain, wealth, horses and goods accumulated that one cannot speak of them." He goes on to say how none of the women folk of the peasantry remained

151

without ornaments, and that "in every peasant's house there were clean bed-sheets, excellent bed-cots, many articles and much wealth."

Obviously these remarks applied largely to the richer sections among the peasants and the rural, privileged sections—the khuts, muqaddams etc. Thus, rural society continued to be unequal, with imperial policies siphoning off a large share of the rural surplus. However, there was some limited success to the efforts to improve the rural economy even though the benefit of these was reaped largely by the privileged sections in rural society.

ii. Non-Agricultural Production

We do not have any detailed account of the economic resources of the country during the Sultanat period, and it has to be supplemented by the account provided by Abul Fazl in the Ain-i-Akbari, written towards the end of the 16th century. Briefly, the most important manufactures pertained to textiles, metallurgy, building activities, mining and other ancillary activities, such as leather-work, paper-making, toy-making, etc.

Textiles

Textile production was the biggest industry of India and goes back to ancient times. It included the manufacture of cotton cloth, woollen cloth and silk. Cotton cloth itself could be divided into two categories—the coarse (kamin) and the fine (mahin). The coarse cloth, which was also called pat, was worn by the poor and the faqirs. It was often manufactured in households in the villages, but was also produced in some regions, such as Awadh, from which it was imported into Delhi. Cotton cloth of a little superior quality was called calico (kirpas), and was widely used. Cloth of fine variety included muslin which was produced at Sylhet and Dacca in Bengal, and Deogir in the Deccan. This was so fine and expensive as to be used only by the nobles and the very rich. Gujarat also produced many variety of fine cotton-stuff. Barbossa tells us that Cambay (Khambayat) was the centre for the manufacture of all kinds of finer and coarse cotton cloth, besides other cheap varieties of velvets, satins, tafettas or thick carpets.

Various varieties of cloth was both painted, and printed by using blocks of wood. Thus, the 14th century Sufi Hindi poet, Mulla Daud, talks of printed (khand chaap) cloth. Apart from the manufacture of cloth, other miscellaneous goods such as carpets, prayer

152

carpets, coverlets, bedding, bed-strings, etc. were also manufactured in other parts of Gujarat.

The production of cloth improved during the period because of the introduction of the spinning-wheel (charkha). According to a modern historian, Irfan Habib, the spinning wheel is attested to in Iran in the 12th century by some well-known poets. Its earliest reference in India is in the middle of the 14th century. Thus, it apparently came to India with the Turks, and came into general use by the middle of the 14th century. We are told that the spinning-wheel in its simplest form increased the spinner's efficiency some six-fold, in comparison with a spinner working with a hand spindle.

Another device introduce during the period was the bow of the cotton-carder (naddaf, dhunia) which speeded up the process of separating cotton from seeds.

Silk was imported from Bengal where silk worms were reared. However, a greater supply of silk yarn, including raw silk, was imported from Iran and Afghanistan. There was much use of silk cloth, and of cotton and silk mixed at Delhi and its neighbourhood. The silk of Cambay (Khambayat) was among the costly items of cloth controlled by Alauddin Khalji. The patolas of Gujarat with many fancy designs were highly valued. Gujarat was also famous for its gold and silver embroidery, generally on silk cloth.